Roe v Wade is on deck

[Gospel]

Can you be specific? I don't know where you got that.



Thanks for not reading what I wrote.

And just to make one other thing clear, having an abortion is nothing like having a child!

Who made a claim to the contrary?

I would make a claim to the contrary. They are exactly alike in at least one way: they are both decisions pertaining to the life and death of something. They may be opposite sides of a decision, but they are, in fact, both "sides of that decision", and this makes them "alike".

And that decision needs to be made, and made very explicitly.

That's nice and all, but I haven't attempted to make a measurement. It would be nice if you addressed this directly to Jimmy Neutron who seems to think I'm Finbarr Calamitous. Which I don't blame him for because I hardly ever share a complete thought or finish discussions I engage in.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would make a claim to the contrary. They are exactly alike in at least one way: they are both decisions pertaining to the life and death of something. They may be opposite sides of a decision, but they are, in fact, both "sides of that decision", and this makes them "alike".

And that decision needs to be made, and made very explicitly.

That's nice and all, but I haven't attempted to make a measurement. It would be nice if you addressed this directly to Jimmy Neutron who seems to think I'm Finbarr Calamitous. Which I don't blame him for because I hardly ever share a complete thought or finish discussions I engage in.

You asked, I answered. I tend to dislike "who ever said anything about ______" as if the view is ridiculous or somehow absent despite it's silence. I view it as a problematic discussion strategy.

 

[Gospel]

I would make a claim to the contrary. They are exactly alike in at least one way: they are both decisions pertaining to the life and death of something. They may be opposite sides of a decision, but they are, in fact, both "sides of that decision", and this makes them "alike".

And that decision needs to be made, and made very explicitly.

That's nice and all, but I haven't attempted to make a measurement. It would be nice if you addressed this directly to Jimmy Neutron who seems to think I'm Finbarr Calamitous. Which I don't blame him for because I hardly ever share a complete thought or finish discussions I engage in.

You asked, I answered. I tend to dislike "who ever said anything about ______" as if the view is ridiculous or somehow absent despite it's silence. I view it as a problematic discussion strategy.

Wow.

 

[Toni]

The sex drive is the problem..

I would posit that the sex drive is not the problem. The problem is the judging of it.

It should be judged. It should be discouraged.

A single woman raising a child can mean hardship for both.

What should not be judged is the decision to abort. Especially if it is done early.

I think the word you are looking for is 'forbidden.'

Why do I think that? Well, you haven't mentioned the father of those children or any judgment to be leveled against his indiscriminate sex life or irresponsibility for fathering a child with someone when he does not have the means or intention of supporting that child.

Trust me: women having children while unmarried is very much discouraged, even by those who would forbid abortion. Women enjoying a sex life is very much discouraged by most of society.

In fact, much of society heavily discourages women having children at all. If they do so when they are not married, then they are a drag on the economy because we all assume that means that they are unable or unwilling to support themselves or their children and we darn well ensure that is true by making good quality child care expensive and inaccessible, by paying poverty wages, by not providing health care to all, including mental health care or affordable (or free) post secondary education, by allowing employers to make it difficult for women to have a baby and work because there is no paid parental leave, inadequate vacation leave, inflexible work hours and by allowing employers to penalize women for being women in terms of job assignments, promotions, etc. then we are definitely discouraging all women from having babies. Or had you not looked at the falling birth rate?

What is next? If a married woman with a child is divorced by her husband, should she be required to forfeit that child? I mean, part of me would love to see that, to see men suddenly be forced to deal with raising children while trying to provide food and a roof and maintain his career trajectory. I'm sure for the first 5 or 10 years, we'd all be hearing about how heroic these men are but eventually, the employers would get tired of having to adjust to men needing a day off because their child has the Norovirus and maybe men would start to feel some of the difficulties faced by women who have children while not properly coupled with some man. That's a pretty big maybe but it would be fun to watch. And OMG what men would say about the hit to their sex lives!

Do I agree that it is better for parent and child to raise children in two parent homes? Yes, I do. Even if that parent is independently wealthy, has no need to seek gainful employment and can employ a host of nannies and housekeepers to help share the burden. Because no matter how much money and no matter how much hired help you have, raising a child well: being there emotionally and physically, addressing the child's needs is a hellalotta work for even the most devotedly coupled and whole heartedly parenting parents.

The reality is that a LOT of women raise children on their own. Most couples who marry early (20-25) end up divorcing. The overall divorce rate in the US is 50 percent. A lot of fathers do not meet their support obligations, do not honor or want visitation agreements. A lot of women raise children on their own.

Perhaps the better thing to do if we really want to prevent young women from becoming pregnant before they are economically stable and in a stable relationship is to provide more opportunity for young people, regardless of sex or gender. If one cannot clearly see a path to a future for oneself, it is much easier to grasp whatever short term payoff you can get: sex, babies. It's all romanticized. It's considered feminine, desirable, proof of desirability, proof of virility for the guys. At least among those who are unhappy at home, who don't see any kind of future that includes economic stability for themselves but naively/stupidly/shortsightedly believe they can do better for their own kids.

But then we aren't judging women or attempting to control women, so where's the fun in that?

 

[Rhea]

I don't really understand the nature of the question here so forgive me. I said abortion should be an option available for all women, full stop. I also said I do not have the right to decide for other people, I also do not have ownership over anyone's body other than my own.

The reason I was saying that was because you appeared to continue to say how women “should be” reacting.
Really, the answer is that they “should be” reacting exactly as they do, because that’s the reaction. That women have, to a woman’s issue.

This brings me to my sister (this is years ago now) who had an abortion for financial reasons. During the whole process, she seemed to only be concerned about not being able to support a child. The clinic explained everything to her, the procedure, the risks, subsequent discomforts, and healing and she was fine with that because, in the end, it would cost her less money. They even did a great job in showing her all the options she had VIA State/federal programs available at the time that would provide financial assistance with raising a child. Our family would have supported her too (still do to this day). She went through with it & wasn't the same person ever since. She went from a light-hearted joking all the time, looking at the bright side of things social sort of person to a depressed, argumentive, overly defensive & angry person. In other words, she purchased a Pepsi because it was cheaper than a baby & clearly regretted her choice.

Coonsider this:

She could have been angry and depressed no matter what. Because her anxiety was not about the pregnancy, it was about the perceived trap of poverty. And it is entirely possible that despite the programs listed, despite the intentions of the family, that poverty trap would have been true.

So both of these statements could be true:
1. She is angry and depressed about not getting to keep the pregnancy and have a baby that she wanted because of the threat of poverty being real
2. She would have been angry and depressed - and with a baby - and trapped in the poverty that she had feared.

Either way, the threat of unresolvable poverty is the thing she is angry and depressed about, and would have been, either way.

Consider that is a possibility for her.

I hope she is able to forgive herself if she is harboring blame, because the threat of poverty is real and it is crushing. Many many women who thought they had a support network ended up not supported. Some poeple came through fine, it can happen. But her anxiety about the threat is real and I hope she can forgive herself for being hit by it. And I hope she can find a way forward that accepts her decision which was the one she made at the time with the information she had at the time.


But now consider this further thought:

Your sister’s situation is not everyone’s. And so to judge someone who is in a different position is not your place or even your sister’s place, for that matter. You cannot put one woman’s experience into rules for other women. That would be oppressive, and wrong. You can’t know what they think and need and want.

 

[Rhea]

No matter of life and death ought be treated without due consideration. If I woke up tomorrow and was somehow pregnant, I would throw away an actual literal miracle myself, if it was a miracle I didn't ask for. I would do this both on principle and on lack of preparation, and doing so could very well destroy me.

Then you should avoide abortions. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that all women do or should think like you. Being forced to cleave to your beliefs strips another human of their own agency. You can choose to donate a kidney, but you can’t be forced to donate a kidney because *I* think you should. You cannot dictate that your beliefs compel abother person to donate their organs, blood, or use of their body to a third party.

All I ask is that no human flippantly handle matters of life and death. If they cannot accomplish that, I will lose respect for them to the extent that flippancy continues to be held.

Your respect is not needed, as it turns out.
Religionists “lose respect” for us all the time because we find their beliefs absurd and do not follow them.

flippancy over matters of life and death. It is something I expect of myself and so something I expect of others, to commit due diligence in consideration of matters of life and of death.

You imagine that terminating a pregnancy is a matter of life and death.
You assume others should cleave to your belief.

Why?

Many other people believe, with sound scientific evidence, that a pre-viable fetus is not a person, no more than a post viable vegetative state is a person. And that “life or death” is not the accurate conversation. It is removal of life support, and it is not something they feel guilt about - the “death” has already ocurred, or the “life” has not yet begun.

Your comments all seem to assume others are obliged to think about it exactly as you do.

Why would they?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Your comments all seem to assume others are obliged to think about it exactly as you do.

Why would they?

I think Gun Nut's earlier comment is worth repeating. The abortion question isn't about abortion, it's about controlling who has sex. If a woman has sex when she shouldn't be having sex then she's a whore and should be punished. And women should never have sex for pleasure. Women should have sex when men want them to have sex. It's a religious thing primarily.

 

[Toni]

Your comments all seem to assume others are obliged to think about it exactly as you do.

Why would they?

I think Gun Nut's earlier comment is worth repeating. The abortion question isn't about abortion, it's about controlling who has sex. If a woman has sex when she shouldn't be having sex then she's a whore and should be punished. And women should never have sex for pleasure. Women should have sex when men want them to have sex. It's a religious thing primarily.

You forgot: women should only get pregnant when men want them to be pregnant. That's the real problem. Women's bodies are not under the complete control of men's desires for sex and progeny.

 

[Toni]

I'm thinking about a friend who's first husband forced her to have an abortion, threatening to divorce her if she did not. So, she had an abortion she did not want and yes, that was upsetting for her. So upsetting that when she became pregnant the second time, she defied her husband and kept the pregnancy and the baby after. He divorced her and successfully avoided paying child support only deigning to have any sort of relationship with the child when the child was a teenager. The relationship did not last.

So, yes, being forced by pressure from 'loved' ones, or society or economic circumstances or sometimes, medical circumstances to have an abortion is depressing and upsetting and horrifying for many reasons. And of course, post partum depression is very real and can strike any women, no matter how otherwise healthy or how much she did or did not want the baby. Post partum depression can strike after an abortion. But depression, as Rhea points out, is a common reaction to stressful situations, whether or not a pregnancy or baby is involved.

Being forced to continue a pregnancy, regardless of risk to the life and health of the mother, regardless of the economic risk or burden, the emotional burden, the obstacles to career or education or the consequences to other children or just plain the desire of the woman not to have a baby at that particular time in her life is exceedingly stressful, too. It doesn't produce the healthies pregnancies or the best circumstances for the baby to be born into or for the mother to bond with and care for the baby or for the mother's health and well being.

But who cares about the health and well being of women?

 

[Rhea]

All of these arguments are fun and interesting... but besides the point.
Anti-Abortion is the war on sex. It is not about "fetus rights".

This is demonstrably true.

When given the choice between
1. Reducing abortions by making birth control easily available so women can continue to have sex but abortions go down
Versus
2. Allowing high abortion rates to continue while working to make sexuality education and contraceptives difficult to acquire,


“Pro-Lifers” ALWAYS choose #2. Always.

 

[Toni]

It should be judged. It should be discouraged.

A single woman raising a child can mean hardship for both.

What should not be judged is the decision to abort. Especially if it is done early.

So, I had a post explaining this that somehow seemed to vanish?. Essentially, I should have been aborted. One of the women I judge for not commiting to consideration with a somber heart whether to produce a human life is my own "mother", "the mother" as opposed to my mom.

No matter of life and death ought be treated without due consideration. If I woke up tomorrow and was somehow pregnant, I would throw away an actual literal miracle myself, if it was a miracle I didn't ask for. I would do this both on principle and on lack of preparation, and doing so could very well destroy me.

All I ask is that no human flippantly handle matters of life and death. If they cannot accomplish that, I will lose respect for them to the extent that flippancy continues to be held.

There are some here I respect here not-at-all specifically because of their flippancy over matters of life and death. It is something I expect of myself and so something I expect of others, to commit due diligence in consideration of matters of life and of death.

I would free all women everywhere from being so tethered to this existential millstone of responsibility that I am not myself today tied to. Or extend it to all, all the same. But I can not any more than I could free those who can get pregnant from the fear that they might become pregnant, or pregnant at the wrong time. The world is not fair here, and we can't at this time make it fair. It sucks, but that's how it is.

I'm not certain who you believe considers or has an abortion without considering, very, very seriously the matter, weighing it very carefully before making the decision. I'm certain that there are some who do but I haven't met them. And I've known a few women who have had abortions, some who were devoutly religious--Roman Catholic, as a matter of fact. The only one who regretted the decision to have an abortion was the one who was forced to by her then husband.

I am so sorry that you seem to feel that you should have been aborted (or, perhaps I read that wrongly). Women and girls become pregnant when sometimes, they are unable to care for the baby (and often themselves) and nonetheless, continue the pregnancy either by choice or by default or because termination wasn't available to them. Ideally, this would never happen, but it does. Ideally, when this happens, the pregnant girl or woman who continues the pregnancy will place the baby for adoption immediately, in order to ensure that the child has the best shot at a decent life. That doesn't always happen. Sometimes people are overly optimistic about what they can and cannot happen. There can be a lot of magical thinking. There can be a lot of pressure and shame directed towards those who would like to relinquish the child. And generally speaking, it requires some cooperation on the part of the father, which is not always forthcoming, even if he has no desire to raise the child or provide for it himself. Sometimes people make bad decisions.

In any case, I'm glad you are here and have someone to call mom.

 

[Gospel]

I don't really understand the nature of the question here so forgive me. I said abortion should be an option available for all women, full stop. I also said I do not have the right to decide for other people, I also do not have ownership over anyone's body other than my own.

The reason I was saying that was because you appeared to continue to say how women “should be” reacting.
Really, the answer is that they “should be” reacting exactly as they do, because that’s the reaction. That women have, to a woman’s issue.

This brings me to my sister (this is years ago now) who had an abortion for financial reasons. During the whole process, she seemed to only be concerned about not being able to support a child. The clinic explained everything to her, the procedure, the risks, subsequent discomforts, and healing and she was fine with that because, in the end, it would cost her less money. They even did a great job in showing her all the options she had VIA State/federal programs available at the time that would provide financial assistance with raising a child. Our family would have supported her too (still do to this day). She went through with it & wasn't the same person ever since. She went from a light-hearted joking all the time, looking at the bright side of things social sort of person to a depressed, argumentive, overly defensive & angry person. In other words, she purchased a Pepsi because it was cheaper than a baby & clearly regretted her choice.

Coonsider this:

She could have been angry and depressed no matter what. Because her anxiety was not about the pregnancy, it was about the perceived trap of poverty. And it is entirely possible that despite the programs listed, despite the intentions of the family, that poverty trap would have been true.

So both of these statements could be true:
1. She is angry and depressed about not getting to keep the pregnancy and have a baby that she wanted because of the threat of poverty being real
2. She would have been angry and depressed - and with a baby - and trapped in the poverty that she had feared.

Either way, the threat of unresolvable poverty is the thing she is angry and depressed about, and would have been, either way.

Consider that is a possibility for her.

I hope she is able to forgive herself if she is harboring blame, because the threat of poverty is real and it is crushing. Many many women who thought they had a support network ended up not supported. Some poeple came through fine, it can happen. But her anxiety about the threat is real and I hope she can forgive herself for being hit by it. And I hope she can find a way forward that accepts her decision which was the one she made at the time with the information she had at the time.


But now consider this further thought:

Your sister’s situation is not everyone’s. And so to judge someone who is in a different position is not your place or even your sister’s place, for that matter. You cannot put one woman’s experience into rules for other women. That would be oppressive, and wrong. You can’t know what they think and need and want.

You know what? Fuck you and everyone on this message board. Fuck all yall.

 

[Gospel]

Except Athena Awakened ande Angry aloof. This was my last post.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Fuck me, too? Me???

 

[untermensche]

It should be judged. It should be discouraged.

A single woman raising a child can mean hardship for both.

What should not be judged is the decision to abort. Especially if it is done early.

I think the word you are looking for is 'forbidden.'

I was not looking for any word.

I said what I meant. Every word was carefully chosen.

 

[Toni]

It should be judged. It should be discouraged.

A single woman raising a child can mean hardship for both.

What should not be judged is the decision to abort. Especially if it is done early.

I think the word you are looking for is 'forbidden.'

I was not looking for any word.

I said what I meant. Every word was carefully chosen.

Mine, as well.

I'm frankly not able to think of anything more discouraging than the current state of affairs regarding reproductive choices allowed women and girls unless we start making women who get pregnant without the express written permission of some man wear a giant letter....I don't even know what letter that might be.

Thank god men bear no responsibility in any of this! Except, of course, to pass judgement on whether a woman is allowed to control her own body and under what circumstances and which hoops she must jump through to satisfy his conscience. Heavy lies the crown and all of that...

 

[Metaphor]

I was not looking for any word.

I said what I meant. Every word was carefully chosen.

Mine, as well.

I'm frankly not able to think of anything more discouraging than the current state of affairs regarding reproductive choices allowed women and girls unless we start making women who get pregnant without the express written permission of some man wear a giant letter....I don't even know what letter that might be.

Thank god men bear no responsibility in any of this! Except, of course, to pass judgement on whether a woman is allowed to control her own body and under what circumstances and which hoops she must jump through to satisfy his conscience. Heavy lies the crown and all of that...

Oh? I thought "Trump's America" was already The Handmaid's Tale. Is the situation better or worse than under Trump's America?

 

[Rhea]

The reason I was saying that was because you appeared to continue to say how women “should be” reacting.
Really, the answer is that they “should be” reacting exactly as they do, because that’s the reaction. That women have, to a woman’s issue.




Coonsider this:

She could have been angry and depressed no matter what. Because her anxiety was not about the pregnancy, it was about the perceived trap of poverty. And it is entirely possible that despite the programs listed, despite the intentions of the family, that poverty trap would have been true.

So both of these statements could be true:
1. She is angry and depressed about not getting to keep the pregnancy and have a baby that she wanted because of the threat of poverty being real
2. She would have been angry and depressed - and with a baby - and trapped in the poverty that she had feared.

Either way, the threat of unresolvable poverty is the thing she is angry and depressed about, and would have been, either way.

Consider that is a possibility for her.

I hope she is able to forgive herself if she is harboring blame, because the threat of poverty is real and it is crushing. Many many women who thought they had a support network ended up not supported. Some poeple came through fine, it can happen. But her anxiety about the threat is real and I hope she can forgive herself for being hit by it. And I hope she can find a way forward that accepts her decision which was the one she made at the time with the information she had at the time.


But now consider this further thought:

Your sister’s situation is not everyone’s. And so to judge someone who is in a different position is not your place or even your sister’s place, for that matter. You cannot put one woman’s experience into rules for other women. That would be oppressive, and wrong. You can’t know what they think and need and want.

You know what? Fuck you and everyone on this message board. Fuck all yall.

Gospel, I am sorry this post made you angry or frustrated or insulted. I had been trying to convey questions, possibilities and an opening up of potential reasons. But it’s clear it didn’t land that way. I’m not sure what felt to personal or insulting, But please know that post was not intended as an attack on you (or your sister!) in any way, and I’m truly regretful that apparently that’s the way my comments landed.

I’m sorry, I had intended to explore more about women’s reasons for not reacting the way you think they should.

 

[untermensche]

I was not looking for any word.

I said what I meant. Every word was carefully chosen.

Mine, as well.

I'm frankly not able to think of anything more discouraging than the current state of affairs regarding reproductive choices allowed women and girls unless we start making women who get pregnant without the express written permission of some man wear a giant letter....I don't even know what letter that might be.

Thank god men bear no responsibility in any of this! Except, of course, to pass judgement on whether a woman is allowed to control her own body and under what circumstances and which hoops she must jump through to satisfy his conscience. Heavy lies the crown and all of that...

I feel no guilt for circumstances I had nothing to do with.

I think humans should be taught responsibility and held accountable for not being responsible long before they are sexually active.

So hopefully the young person has had some practice at behaving responsible for their own sake when the time comes.

It is not close to an exact science when you talk about humans though and the people that want to end an unwanted pregnancy should have the means.

And the people that want to keep the child should have some means to raise it without the child suffering hardship.

A national daycare system would help a lot.

It would help parents greatly and provide a lot of jobs.

A no brainer when all it would take is building less bombs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what? Fuck you and everyone on this message board. Fuck all yall.

Where is the line forming?